Random Thoughts on WWII and replacement policy in the ETO

A place to talk about all things military, paramilitary, tactical, strategic, and logistical.
Langenator
Posts: 871
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Random Thoughts on WWII and replacement policy in the ETO

Post by Langenator » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:16 pm

Another potential source of more divisions for northwest Europe would have been Italy. Offensive operations there became largely irrelevant beginning in the summer of 1944, especially after the DRAGOON landings in August, 1944. (IMHO, offensive operations in Italy became pointless once the air bases in the Foggia area had been captured, allowing Fifteenth Air Force strategic bombers to attack German-held industrial targets from the south.)

Stripping Italy of divisions not needed to simply hold a defensive line across the peninsula MIGHT have garnered enough divisions to give each field army a single division reserve, Maybe. (IIRC, ETO had 1st, 3rd, 7th, and 9th Armies on the American side. There were 7 U.S. divisions in Italy at the end of 1944. So you'd have to pull out just over half to give each army a division.)
Fortuna Fortis Paratus

User avatar
MiddleAgedKen
Posts: 2419
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 pm
Location: Flyover Country

Re: Random Thoughts on WWII and replacement policy in the ETO

Post by MiddleAgedKen » Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:32 pm

Langenator wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:46 pm
(As a side note, those Essex-class carriers? The first 10 or so had actually been ordered in 1941, before Pearl Harbor. Ships that size take time to build.)
Yep. Also, Essex was the first class of fleet carrier that was designed with (1) carrier experience in hand and (2) not constrained by political factors (Lex and Sara were under construction as battlecruisers when they were converted to carriers under the Washington Treaty, and the Yorktown class design was predicated on leftover Washington Treaty tonnage -- that's why Wasp was a little smaller than the three Yorktowns). The Navy built only one Ranger, because they learned quickly the design wasn't suitable. If I remember right, it pitched excessively in heavy seas.
Watergate didn't have a body count.

Langenator
Posts: 871
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Random Thoughts on WWII and replacement policy in the ETO

Post by Langenator » Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:39 am

To clarify: the Yorktown class (Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet) were built to treaty specs as far as max per ship tonnage, and the Wasp was built a bit undersized to use up the remaining total tonnage.

Ranger's major problem was that she was too slow for 'fast carrier' fleet ops.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus

User avatar
MiddleAgedKen
Posts: 2419
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 pm
Location: Flyover Country

Re: Random Thoughts on WWII and replacement policy in the ETO

Post by MiddleAgedKen » Sat Jun 23, 2018 2:36 am

Langenator is correct.

One of the things I'm noodling for a WWII naval campaign is this idea: What if the Japanese had foregone building Shinano and instead devoted the tonnage used to, say, two or three more Shokaku or Hiryu/Soryu types?

I wouldn't propose they be so foresighted as to not build Yamato and Musashi (though they really shouldn't have, in 20/20 hindsight), but their habit (apart from the Kongo class) was to build two of each class, so an argument for not building Shinano wouldn't do undue violence to history or national character.

With eight or nine fleet carriers in Kido Butai in December 1941 they might have gotten the tank farm at Pearl, and the 1942 engagements would have been a much different proposition for the Pacific Fleet, had they been fought at all. In the long run the Japanese still could not hope to match US industrial might, but in a longer war of attrition (especially one that might not have gotten underway in earnest until the Germans' hash had been settled), war-weariness in the American public may have become a factor.
Watergate didn't have a body count.

Langenator
Posts: 871
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Random Thoughts on WWII and replacement policy in the ETO

Post by Langenator » Sat Jun 23, 2018 2:53 pm

Interesting thought problem: which target would it have benefitted Japan more to bomb at Pearl Harbor, the fuel tank farm (almost certainly the easier target) or the subs and sub tenders?

Semi-related to the tank farm: I read somewhere that it actually didn't really matter that all the BBs got sunk/damaged, because the Pacific fleet didn't have enough fleet oilers to support both the CVs and the BBs. So the BBs probably would have been stuck at Pearl Harbor during the initial battles anyway. (and, in further analysis, maybe the best target would have been any fleet oilers present. No oilers, and the fleet is limited to a certain radius around its base(s).)
Fortuna Fortis Paratus

Greg
Posts: 8162
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: Random Thoughts on WWII and replacement policy in the ETO

Post by Greg » Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:30 pm

Langenator wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:39 am
To clarify: the Yorktown class (Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet) were built to treaty specs as far as max per ship tonnage, and the Wasp was built a bit undersized to use up the remaining total tonnage.

Ranger's major problem was that she was too slow for 'fast carrier' fleet ops.
Ranger had a number of problems. She was the first purpose built carrier, after we'd gotten some experience operating them (but not nearly enough). They maybe got a little ambitious and tried to be very tonnage-efficient - make it small enough that remaining treaty tonnage after Lex and Sara would allow 5 Rangers- cramming the most aviation capability into the smallest hull.

She was slow for any fleet operations, and very fragile (minimal armor, no underwater protection at all, relatively light construction, etc). She had some cool features - I believe she had the very first deck edge elevator.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby

If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr

Langenator
Posts: 871
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Random Thoughts on WWII and replacement policy in the ETO

Post by Langenator » Sat Jun 23, 2018 7:04 pm

I think the first deck edge elevator was on the Wasp.

Probably the most insteresting feature on the Ranger, from what I've seen, and this was designed but not built, was putting a catapult in the hangar deck to allow double-deck launches. Again, part of the initial design, but later deleted.

The two most noticable features were the hinged stacks, which were lowered when conducting flight ops, and the mostly open hangar deck, which had roll down 'doors' to protect from the weather, if not enemy fire.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus

Greg
Posts: 8162
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: Random Thoughts on WWII and replacement policy in the ETO

Post by Greg » Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:50 pm

Ah, memory playing tricks on me.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby

If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr

User avatar
Jered
Posts: 7243
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:30 am

Re: Random Thoughts on WWII and replacement policy in the ETO

Post by Jered » Sun Jun 24, 2018 1:02 am

Langenator wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 2:53 pm
Interesting thought problem: which target would it have benefitted Japan more to bomb at Pearl Harbor, the fuel tank farm (almost certainly the easier target) or the subs and sub tenders?
Probably the tank farm. The Navy had a huge amount of oil stored there. The loss of that oil would probably have crippled the Navy's operations. A Pennsylvania class BB could carry 11,000 barrels of fuel oil and the tank farm at Pearl stored 4.5 million barrels. If the Japanese destroyed that, then we're stuck trying to run our fleet from San Diego until we can get that rebuilt.

I'd say that the tank farm was probably a more important target than the battlefleet.
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

User avatar
randy
Posts: 7324
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: EM79VQ

Re: Random Thoughts on WWII and replacement policy in the ETO

Post by randy » Sun Jun 24, 2018 2:29 pm

When I was CINCPAC I ran across a study done by the targeting shop on Pearl Harbor as it was in December 1941.

Bottom line was that hitting the fuel depot and the dry docks would have a much greater impact on the course of the war than hitting the fleet.

That fuel vulnerability was recognized at the time hence the construction of the Red Hill underground fuel facility still in use today (or was in the 90's)
...even before I read MHI, my response to seeing a poster for the stars of the latest Twilight movies was "I see 2 targets and a collaborator".

Post Reply